Carole J. Bland and William H. Bergquist. (1997). The Vitality of Senior Faculty Members: Snow on the Roof--Fire in the Furnace. Reviewed by Lee S. Duemer

Carole J. Bland and William H. Bergquist. (1997). The Vitality of Senior Faculty Members: Snow on the Roof--Fire in the Furnace. ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Report Volume 25, No. 7. Washington, D.C.: The George Washington University, Graduate School of Education and Human Development. Reviewed by Lee S. Duemer University of Iowa Pp. xii + 169         ISBN 1-878380-79-6. $24.00 August 23, 1998           The aging of America's higher education faculty is abundant with policy implications. These men and women flooded higher education in the 1960s and 1970s. Their introduction to faculty ranks and the concurrent changes in higher education were not a matter of coincidence. Now, they compose the upper age spectrum of the professorate and hold a significant portion of tenured positions. Consequently, they are still in a position to determine the future of higher education and affect change, much as they were thirty years ago. This sets the context and provides the justification for investigating the vitality of senior faculty members (Bland and Bergquist, p. iii). Senior faculty are defined as those who are employed full time, tenured, have been working for at least fifteen years, and are more than 45 years of age (Bland and Bergquist, p. 3). Vitality is somewhat more difficult to define, as the authors admit. Some of the terms used to define it include physical drive, durability, enthusiasm, though this is not complete or inclusive (Bland and Bergquist, p. 2).           Concern about the productivity of senior faculty has become an issue over the past ten years. With the elimination of mandatory retirement and strengthening of age discrimination laws, some in academe (and outside it) have increasingly perceived senior faculty as more a problem than an asset. Lucrative early retirement packages have further fed the idea that senior faculty are in the way or somehow need to be moved out of the institution. This body of senior faculty bring financial implications for higher education. Such a large number of faculty advanced in age and professional development have pushed salaries upwards. As any budget-minded administrator or department chair will tell you, tenured faculty can be expensive. A full professor in late career can cost much as two assistant professors.           Bland and Bergquist add depth to this work by combining research methodologies. Their use of both qualitative and quantitative methodologies provides a multidimensional approach which takes the reader on a tour of faculty productivity from a variety of angles. One chapter stands out in particular, "The Case of Stephen Abbot." This section, prepared by Joseph Axelrod, examines the professional life of a senior faculty member on a real campus (p. 13). The chronology of Abbot's career is divided into five sections, spanning from his student years into the present decade. Perhaps the most important lesson from this examination is the way in which the priorities of senior faculty have shifted over time. In early career, many seem to have been preoccupied with accumulating the resources and network with which to succeed in academe. For senior faculty, that is no longer a concern. After having established a secure career base, senior faculty enjoy considerable freedom to decide where their interests will take them.           There are some important implications with faculty freedom. Faculty freedom brings with it both advantages and challenges to institutions. Senior faculty can be an institution's most creative thinkers. Many have reached the high point of their careers, and have little hope or interest in further advancements. Freedom, however, can be troublesome without adequate guidance and support. This is the new challenge for institutions. While some senior faculties have a clear sense of their priorities in goals, others may find their new freedom confusing, and may lack the guidance necessary to take advantage of it.           Bland and Bergquist go directly to one of the most common misperceptions regarding senior faculty, the idea that they are mentally incapable of maintaining the same level of productivity as their younger colleagues (p.27). They are clear to point out that most longitudinal studies do not support this idea. In fact, many of the abilities necessary to succeed in academe do not fully develop until mid life. The information the authors draw on indicates that senior faculty may be better equipped intellectually that those who are young in their careers. Many important skills, such as a well-integrated knowledge base and organized thinking skills are stronger and more fully developed in senior faculty.           It was a pleasant surprise to see Bland and Bergquist draw from a diverse body of knowledge in their examination of faculty vitality. To develop an understanding of faculty vitality, they begin by examining internal factors that can influence productivity. As pointed out in the review of Stephen Abbot's career, developmental changes may initiate a reevaluation of one's goals and interests. Any young faculty member making the transition from a graduate student to an assistant professor should be able to understand the need to define one's career priorities, interests, and growth in a new position. This is similar to the change that occurs as the senior faculty member rises from associate professor to professor. Similar changes occur, involving further redefinitions of career goals and the development of new life and work interests.           Perhaps the most important theme uncovered by Bland and Bergquist is the relationship between the individual faculty member and the institution and the responsibility they have to each other. The institution has a responsibility to provide the individual a supportive atmosphere, compensation representative to contributions, and opportunities for advancement. Without these things an individual cannot be expected to remain productive. Likewise, individuals have a responsibility to their institution. An institution is, after all, the sum of the creative minds of its faculty. No institution can be considered creative without the productive capacity of its faculty. The responsibility the institution has toward the individual depends on the faculty member in question. Younger faculty seek assistance with developing their professional network, learning how to successfully navigate the tenure process, developing teaching skills or more clearly defining a research agenda. Senior faculty have different interests or problems, such as trying to cope with the expectations they had for their careers and the reality they find themselves in, changing family issues, or the need for new direction (p. 84).           Bland and Bergquist explore three facets of academic life-- teaching, research and service--with respect to faculty vitality and interest. The authors have no conclusive advice to provide regarding teaching, aside from the conclusion that senior faculty are interested in teaching and remain committed to students. Research is a more complex matter. For many years, it was thought that a decline in productivity over time was the result of decreased mental sharpness, or the erosion of motivation. While a decline in productivity does occur, the previous possibilities have been successfully ruled out. One must keep in mind, that the decline in productivity is slight and is abundant with contradictions. While some faculty produce less, others go on to produce more than ever in their senior years. One's perspective on the issue also depends on the definitions one uses to view it. When productivity is measured by number of citations, senior faculty appear less productive than junior faculty. However, if productivity is measured by published journal articles, books, monographs and manuals, then senior faculty appear very productive. The information available on this aspect of productivity is summative, therefore it does not inform us about changes in productivity over time. It does tell us that compared to senior faculty of the 1970s, contemporary senior faculty are more productive. With respect to any decline in productivity over time, the authors suggest that senior faculty may merely be more concerned with quality than quantity. Unfortunately, the authors had less information about productivity as it pertains to service. This is another area where senior faculty can serve as a valuable resource to their institutions, disciplines and colleagues. Naturally, senior faculty benefit from a greater knowledge of the history of their institution and discipline and are able to apply this to the benefit of younger colleagues.           Bland and Bergquist's conclusions from the available scholarship remind us how the reward system in academe continues to be structured. They apparently had little difficulty finding ample information about faculty productivity with respect to scholarship. However, scholarship was able to inform them considerably less about other aspects of productivity, such as teaching and service. Lack of scholarly interest in these two areas is reflective of the continued emphasis on scholarship as the defining characteristic of academic success. Perhaps one of the most important contributions of made by Bland and Bergquist in this book is to remind us that faculty productivity is the result of a combination of factors. The image of the lonely scholar huddled in silence over an ancient text in some hidden corner of the library is sharply challenged here. Faculty productivity emerges as a highly social activity. Furthermore, Bland and Bergquist encourage faculty, regardless of seniority, to view productivity in an inclusive manner. Fellman (1995) finds that when higher education defines publications as the main determinant of productivity, it reinforces negative attitudes and beliefs, such as deference to authority, compulsive behavior and academic narcissism. Additionally, Fellman found that the publishing imperative denigrates teaching and encourages faculty to ignore or reject real human connections with others (Fellman, 1995). Bland and Bergquist's findings are consistent with recent scholarship that finds scholarship and teaching to be interrelated (Giles-Gee, 1997).           Bland and Bergquist's findings provide a suitable framework for advancing faculty productivity. Coincidentally or not, many of these are the same components identified as essential to institutional survival in the strategic planning process. These include factors such as "clear goals that serve a coordinating function; an emphasis on the institution's priorities . . . assertive participative governance; decentralized organization; frequent communication; sufficient and accessible resources . . ." (p. 60). Many institutions committed to enhancing faculty productivity would likely find it easy and practical to link faculty productivity to strategic planning.           Linking faculty development to strategic planning would address differences in faculty priorities found at different types of institution. This idea is nothing new to higher education. Possibly the earliest American example of linking goals to the institution was in the early Harvard College statutes, "everyone shall consider the main End of his life and studies to know God and Jesus Christ which is eternal life" (Hofstadter and Smith, 1961, 2). While the formulation of institutional goals has become considerably more complex, the principle is the same; to "give an organization a sense of direction, a frame of reference for its activities, and a means by which to evaluate change and progress . . . " (Fenske, 1989, p.178). Naturally, faculty at community colleges, liberal arts colleges and research universities have different priorities and demands on their time. Existing strategic planning priorities would ensure that faculty productivity plans would match institutional dynamics.           Bland and Bergquist bring up evidence to indicate that in the future, institutions will have to be more creative in the professional development services they provide to senior faculty. In many cases, contemporary senior faculty have spent all, or nearly all of their lives in educational institutions. This image is contrasted with many contemporary junior faculty, and even non-traditional senior faculty, who have come to academe from business or another segment of "the real world." This latter group tends to be more open to experimentation with their academic careers. As this group continues to move into the senior ranks, institutions will have to find ways to keep them intellectually stimulated.           An implication for the future that the authors did not explore in any depth was changing senior faculty demographics, with respect to gender and race. Admittedly, women and minorities continue to represent a small proportion of senior faculty ranks (Blackwell, 1996, 617). However, as more women and minorities rise into the senior ranks, might we expect further changes associated with gender or race? There is reason to suspect this might occur. As Bland and Bergquist mention, one faculty development model was based on male faculty at a liberal arts institution (p. 67), it is likely that these subjects were also White. Such models need to be viewed in a critical eye when they are considered for application to a population that is more diverse. The authors caution against incorporating faculty productivity models that are based on populations that do not represent the growing diversity in faculty ranks. Different developmental stages in career exploration identified by gender differences were uncovered among young adults (Farmer, 1995). Lacy and Hendricks (1980) identified race, social class and gender as predictors of adult passage through consecutive developmental stages.           The authors touch on some interesting ideas with respect to diversity and the conflict between open access and quality higher education. Early on, they take the position that high quality and open access are essential to the 1990s and that quality education must expose students to diversity (Bland and Bergquist, p. 5-6). As recent events in California and Texas demonstrate, equality in access does not necessarily translate into equality in representation. The elimination of discriminatory admissions standards that kept Asian enrollment at forced low levels has resulted in increased enrollment for that particular group. However, Black enrollment has plummeted with the removal of artificial enrollment forcing. The authors later (p. 77) make the statement that diversity is positive ". . . as long as the group has the same primary goals and culture." They state that senior faculty have a central role in preserving group goals and culture. While they cite some sources that support this, none is more recent than 1976. I would like to see Bland and Bergquist explore this in more depth in the future. In light of the development of multicultural education, and the seeming conflict between open access and quality, these authors could address that gap with their scholarship on senior faculty.           Bland and Bergquist are to be commended for their investigation of an area in higher education that has been misunderstood, under investigated and holds serious implications for the future. Those of us in higher education can expect to see this text widely cited as the launch point for additional scholarship on senior faculty. References Blackwell, J. (1996). Faculty Issues: The Impact on Minorities. In Turner, C., Gracia, M. Nora, A., Rendon, L. Racial and Ethnic Diversity in Higher Education. Needham Heights, MA: Simon and Schuster. Farmer, H. (1995). Gender Differences in Adolescent Career Exploration. ERIC Clearinghouse on Counseling and Student Services. Document ED391108. Fellman, G. (1995). On the Fetishism of Publications and the Secrets Thereof. Academe, 81 (1), 26-35. Fenske, R. (1989). Setting Institutional Goals and Objectives. Improving Academic Management: A Handbook of Planning and Institutional Research. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Giles-Gee, H. (1997). Initiatives Aimed at Increasing Faculty Productivity. Metropolitan Universities: An International Forum, 7 (4), 75-88. Hofstadter, R and Smith, W. (1961). American Higher Education: A Documentary History. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Lacy, W. And Hendricks, J. (1980). Developmental Models of Adult Life: Myth or Reality. International Journal of Aging and Human Development, 11 (2), 89-107. About the Reviewer Lee S. Duemer is Visiting Assistant Professor in Planning, Policy and Leadership Studies at the University of Iowa, College of Education. His interests are history and policy issues in American higher education.